Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy

Closing instructions 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy
The page creator has asked me to MfD this. I don't believe there's any support for the page at this time; it was intended as a way to store information from 2 or 3 pages, including WP:BLP, so that the same information could be transcluded on all pages. This is a strategy that was tried on several style guidelines pages for a while, and consensus was that it didn't work; people who weren't very likely to keep up with changes on the style guidelines pages lost all interest in keeping up with changes when those changes moved to a separate page, because it wasn't possible to look at a diff in the history. Disclaimer: I'm not uninvolved here, I made an argument at WP:VPP that I didn't like this direction. I'm opening this MfD because the G7 speedy was denied by another admin, and the page creator asked me to MfD this. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the G7 wasn't denied by another admin, it was removed from the page by . He routinely reverts my edits, and opposes my XfD nominations.


 * Agree per nominator. I myself have mentioned this argument as well in this diff.
 * G7 indeed wasn't appropriate for several reasons: 1. several other editors had edited this page 2. policy pages should be commented upon by the community, in my understanding. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then your deletion of the G7 tag was WP:POINT, as you now agree that it should be deleted.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as page creator -- no other editors have made any significant contributions, all changes without prior discussion have been reverted. Once upon a time, transclusion of subpages was routine. There is support for it in the base software, specifically . Actually, the history is easier to track, as each subpage has its own history. Apparently, it has fallen out of use, as regular editors don't readily understand it. Once that was explained by Dank, I was happy to agree on another way to prevent textual drift, specifically by removing the text in all other places, and using the main and details summary style templates to cross reference. Please delete at your leisure.
 * Delete - it is difficult enough to keep an eye on one policy page without having to watch subpages as well. I prefer the present set-up using main and details. Occuli (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:William Allen Simpson. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.